I just read the most astonishing/last Greece step about its debt: the government decided to repay in full a 450mUSD-loan maturing yesterday.

So basically, euro-zone countries and banks had to sit their ass on more than 150billion EUR of greek-debt while in the meantime, Greeks partly used this money to repay... Hedge Funds which bought this 450mUSD loan, speculating Greece would finally pay more than what the level at which they bought it... and they were right!!

Smthing goes seriously wrong in europe

Edit: Greece is out of the Euro... at least in football ;-) gg wp both

not in a direct way though, lets take a look at greece: the deutsche bank gave them money, an amount they will never ever be able to repay and so the deutsche bank will knock on our governments door and ask them to give them the money back because they guaranteed a payback. where does the government get its money from? the tax payer, which means every single german citizen has to bleed for the complete retardness of merkel, schšuble and the greek government.

youre only partially right, while you didnt mention how german banks are making profit out of all those % from the loans.And that from the 80 billion loan 22,4 were german so the rest of those that contributed are other EU countries (exception Slovakia).In the end, youre only saving your own banks and thats it, while others are getting dry sucked from the money.

It doesn't mean you are right, there were 7 people voting on that "outcluded" term, 5 of which were probably morons who wanted to prove their proficiency in English.

Considering it's got like a 37 percent dislike status, people agree as well. Want to learn English through Urban dictionary, here, let me paste some more terms and phrases that could make you shine in that business power-meeting, or seem like a language guru among your Pole friends (and hot girls!!).

tl;dr : Urban Dictionary is a user-content site and you're an idiot for mis-spelling a word, twice an idiot for googling the word you misspelled and clicking on the first link without checking for background information, and thrice and idiot for using that as an argument regarding linguistics.

I use wikipedia for general information purposes when I don't want to find in-depth information about a subject, or for introductory purposes to the above-mentioned subject. There's a difference, since wikipedia have a volunteer army of nerds on ego-trips who would would rather die than publish an incorrect article.

^ And even with that, I still read wikipedia-based material with a pinch of salt when it comes to far-fetched facts or statements which could be considered opinionated. (Russian language and English language wiki articles seem to differ in content and coverage for example, when it comes to local events or public figures or historical events).

You can write "penguins live on trees and fly south in winter" on both sites, and wiki would edit that, while urban dictionary might keep it, depending on merit and satirical value.

So yea, you cited 1 reference on the internet (I, in a feeble attempt to prevent myself to be out-smarted by a dickhead, actually googled "outcluded" in a moment of weakness just to see what I would get, and one reference on a non-regulated user content site :j

Congrats on making up a new word, however I would advise you to not use it in real life in front of fluent English speakers, since they are very likely to "outclude" you for idiocy c:

i dunno what country clowns like you come from, but that would need a nuke alot more than greece.

ps: I hope greece elects those funny commies and they stick the middle finger into germanys face, cuz I m not sure its ok that germany lives off europe for all eternity, people should really wake up and start thinkin

Vast amount of money transferred between a few so-called wise guys, with the goal to launch economies out into space. To me, every banker is a speculator.

I bet the population did not see much of those money, at the time.

Here in the wild east, things are a bit better, regarding the debt, simply because the foreign bankers and economy analysts -clueless guys all around in the finance industry -because they did not have enough time to throw much money over our heads.

If a country needs outside funds, then something is wrong. If someone from the outside comes with big amounts of money, then something will go wrong for sure.

Vast amounts of money, invested -pushed, as a matter of fact -in a random country, like here in the wild east, without having a clear vision on how will the money be spend and who will benefit from the money, will for sure only bring a precarious economy to its knees and for that country it will be impossible to pay the debt. Here there are a lot of dubious companies, who in the end will have to close their gates and who only exist because someone "smart" was smart enough to ask for so much money as to be able to start an unproductive, disloyal and ineffective company, and to keep this company functioning in deficit for years to come.

One big piece of advice for any finances investor: if you want to put money somewhere, always look for the level of wealth, because this is where from you will in the end pick up your venues. If you do not listen to the power of regular people to give you back your money, you can say goodbye to your massive investments and wipe your ass with all the trillions of dollars you plan to invest.

Actually it sounds more like one of yours, most closet fags try to accuse others of being so first to see how they might be treated when they finally come out or get exposed.

Often by making big elevations/accusations in relation to what is said, if anything kebab is in reference to a vagina (if I was making it in reference to that-which I was not), so it just goes to show that even when something is the complete opposite in every way of what you say, you're so desperate to talk about cock you'll try in vain to reshuffle it to test the water cos one day, you know that's gonna be you whose getting called a cock jockey. FOR REAL.

You're so far down the emotional intelligence ladder compared to someone like me, its almost painful.

So, I belive you are just trying your hardest to repress your homosexual urges by applying the "cloud of smoke" tactic. You have two choices, either 1) give in by opening a 5th business, "Bum boys 4 US -Swansea" or, if you do not wish to expand your business empire, just pray the gay away!

This is the 3rd time you've made this reference and Innuendo in as many days and it appears to be more desperate with each day that passes as you selet your choiciest social taboos from a list that probably revolves around religion, racism, sexuality that you picked up from all those escapist years on IRC.

A) That's not repeating myself, that's simply linking to a point on the page. I have said what I said only once. Unlike you.Unlike You

B) Its not meant to show what I said, it meant to show you replying to something you did not need to, in relation to the what you said about me not needing to reply. Linking to my answer would not make sense. Linking to yours shows the contradiction in what you said and what I was replying too.

Why did I not user your post id I hear you ask?

I did not have the #pid for your comment as you has already spammed more than 20 posts (so I could not get it from last 20 comments) and I'm not sifting through source code to get it, so I simply used my #pid as it would show your response and show you replying tosomething you did not need to.

1. Show me how globalisation is something more than a difference in degree from me specializing in what I do well, you specializing in what you do well, and then us two exchanging each other's surplus to have both goods in greater quantity than we'd have if we worked separately.
2. Stop spewing populist bullshit on the internetz, just in case someone reads and believes it.

this is the ideological idea behind globalization
the truth is that the ideology has been filled with intermediate affairs who try to impose the same global prices on all the manufacture, regardless the evident space which separates the two guys from your 2 points "demolishing" (elementary school) THEORY
the strange coincidence is that the name of intermediate affairs is written in capital letters, sometimes having a "Corp." at the end.

Why do American oil companies sell American oil to other countries? Why the owners of my local natural gas resources export our natural gas and import natural gas from Russia? Their explanation, that "the high price perceived for the gas is in concordance with the E.U. standards doesn't say much to our pockets now, does it?

I really don't understand the first paragraph (or as much of it as an intelligent reply requires).

As to the second paragraph, let me just preface what I'm about to write. If you're a believer in the total domination of oil companies on the market and their boundless ability to raise the prices without losing sales volume, don't bother with my reply or read it for comical purposes. Nevertheless...

US is a net exporter of oil since...2011. To me it's understandable that oil is sold where the profits are the biggest and with the US losing its economic advantage, higher profits are to be found elsewhere.

The exporters export to where the achevable price is the highest (they do have to offer a slightly better price then the prevailing market price over there in order to sell anything, don't they?) and when they import from Russia, apparently it's more cost-effective and they are able (and forced by competition) to offer a better price in your area to gain market share.

That's obviously how it would be handled on a free market, but knowing the political power of oil-related issues, I bet the government is in the middle of it with subsidies or tariffs, which might redirect the flows of trade and prevent the price-equalizing market process from working . If that's the case, don't blame globalisation but make an effort of looking a bit deeper.

"The exporters export to where the achevable price is the highest"
First, the exporters are big corporations who prefer to rapidly make more money instead basing their policy on developing affairs for long-term appliance. Rapid money will always cause instability, and not development. They always prefer to sign contracts with other big companies instead encouraging local producing companies (who in perspective would just create real competition and would be prove as great partners to these greed corporations. And this is destroying the only perspective to redress the economy. Tightening economical relations with guys from the other part of the globe will weaken the connection between the exporters and small local producers, actually will kill the possibility of every and any small company to exist, by suffocating the small producers from the other part of the globe, because the corporation will offer better prices there, and at home these far relations will kill the activity of small producers as well, by establishing monopolies on these small producers, either by buying their small companies in order to shut them down quickly after (and this will also result in more jobs losses) or by offering seducing partnerships to the contractors of these small companies so the small companies will very soon remain without any possibility to sell their products (Coca-Cola anyone?).

The big fishes will eat up the small ones. And if the small fishes will try to unite against the big fishes, they will find out that the waters is favoring the big fishes, because the gov guys can control easier the activity of the corporations and so they will be able to collect their interest rates with increased efficiency.

This disastrous system of corporations would go down quick, if there would not intervene the Feds and other massive "aids" to sustain these mammoth companies alive, mostly aid coming from the guys from the government, because they are deeply involved in the mechanics of the corporations. You think that Obama is interested into opening a small shoes company after retirement? Their extra-gov jobs are all consultants admins or owners of these corporations, the most unfortunate case is when they are only business partners. And simply by allowing the corporations to survive the disaster they are provoking, to the loss of the small industry and of the population, they come to get massive bonuses. Don't talk to me like the actions of the corporations go by the fair law of capitalist competition and fair accumulation of capital.

You also forget about the monopolization of the financial institutions. Big banks will be more eager to give credits to corporations than to small companies, simply because the banks gather more money AT ONCE when they sign out contracts with corporations. By offering to the Corporations the advantage of having part of massive financial help, banks can and in fact WILL sustain corporations to the disadvantage of smaller companies, even if the corporations go for unsustainable or unsuccessful businesses. After all, isn't this the first big cause why the economical crisis exists? The need for much more now, instead a few more later, whatever comes out tomorrow?

You cannot go for global economic advantages for corporations, which work to the disadvantage of the local market and then to say that your national interest is beyond the interests of other nations.
You say something about the U.S. losing its economic advantage, neglecting or not observing the fact that this economical disaster is caused by this very attitude, which is following the same well known path.

"The exporters export to where the achevable price is the highest (they do have to offer a slightly better price then the prevailing market price over there in order to sell anything, don't they?) and when they import from Russia, apparently it's more cost-effective and they are able (and forced by competition) to offer a better price in your area to gain market share."
No sh1t. You thought that I was thinking for a moment that they are going to buy at higher costs to sell cheaper gas to the population? The result of their bad policy is that the population pays about 8 times more for gas that they payed 10 years ago. Well, paying is just a matter of saying. As a matter of fact, people is consuming less and less and is paying the consumption as later as possible, or is even renouncing to this "service" without giving their last rates on the gas. Who is losing here the most?

Because corporations are involved with banks, the sustaining of their wrong (anti-population=anti-consumption) prices policy which comes in response, in order to pay back their money, comes with having to increase the prices of their products and they have to find better deals for this, of course, with the cost of destroying all small activities which are in fact the soul of any veritable capitalist system. The solution would be that instead analyzing the right deals to get them more money, they shoudl try to find ways to cut their connections with banks as much as possible and to find ways to sell their manufacture CHEAPER, to be able to BALANCE the values of their products with the wealth of the population, because the only way to gain more buyers and a stable market is to use lower prices (the benefits of low gains>the benefits of big gains, in the long run).

I've been in such kind of businesses. The more I gained, the even more I could add. Money over money over money, till I woke up that I was moving immense amounts of money, with very little to no real production at all. To simplify the equation, do you prefer to have a company that is selling a small amount of one single thing at exorbitant prices, risking that once the deal will go down, the company to die (and it will die for sure) or do you want to own a company that is selling a lot of various products at low price, and so you will have a lot of people who will buy from you, with very low risk to face bankruptcy?

I'd prefer now to own a company that is not giving me more money than I need to assure my normal needs, than to own a corporation which to give me the possibility to live in luxury and corruption.

"If that's the case, don't blame globalisation but make an effort of looking a bit deeper"
Stupid me, and I was thinking that all these are inter-connected =/

To simplify the equation, do you prefer to have a company that is selling a small amount of one single thing at exorbitant prices, risking that once the deal will go down, the company to die (and it will die for sure) or do you want to own a company that is selling a lot of various products at low price, and so you will have a lot of people who will buy from you, with very low risk to face bankruptcy?

I will comment on that because it has actually given me something to think about. The rest, to be honest, is pretty much rubbish and I don't feel the urge to reproduce any arguments which can be found quickly on the internet. So here we go.

Firstly, you've tried to sell a very objective distinction between what is an expensive and infrequently bought item and one that is cheap and common, but this is arbitrary as there's a continuum of types of merchandise with different degrees of marketability , especially in today's complex economies. Consumer preference can change surprisingly quickly. Just look at things like HD screens, which, at first, were just a luxury for upper class and now they can be found in every household.

But let's accept your view that there are constant categories of common and cheap and uncommon and costly goods. If this is the case, there still won't be a clear preference for the former as a business line. What motivates entrepreneurs to enter a particular field are the potential profit margins and it won't be anything outlandish to see bigger margins in the latter category. I'm not saying that's for sure, but it can be the case about as much as it can't, because it depends on the preferences of consumers and the existing competition.

Let me conclude with a clear reductio ad absurdum. How about we assume there are hundreds of companies baking bread in where you're from and only one, which specializes in sports cars. Now answer your question with that assumption in mind - do you prefer to have a company that is selling a small amount of one single thing at exorbitant prices, risking that once the deal will go down, the company to die (and it will die for sure) or do you want to own a company that is selling a lot of various products at low price, and so you will have a lot of people who will buy from you, with very low risk to face bankruptcy?

Seems to me that you are deliberately pushing the discussion to the point where you ought to be right. Or you just do not understand yet. But I am still not sure if your example with one company selling cars and comparing this "example" has anything to do with anything; as when I made a reference to competition at a whole you did run out of it, bringing a dubious diversification of products on the table; instead trying to even understand what I wrote, especially "the only way to gain more buyers and a stable market is to use lower prices (the benefits of low gains>the benefits of big gains, in the long run)"

"Just look at things like HD screens, which, at first, were just a luxury for upper class and now they can be found in every household"
Wrong example: HD market is a very fast developing market, thanks to new inventions that arise every year and now; it has an unlimited capacity of development YET, very hard to get under strict monopoly. Which brings us to your first statement, that "consumer preference can change surprisingly quickly". Not when we talk about oil or effectively money manufacture.

"let's accept your view that there are constant categories of common and cheap and uncommon and costly goods"
Are you trying to change my view? I did not say that, but that all goods tend to get as expensive as possible, instead trying to get cheaper, because there is the wrong idea driving the world today that more money equals more successful business. Everyone wants to get rich. They do not want to only have their business running for the next 30 years. They prefer to have their business running for 2 years, if this is going to make them rich. What are they going to do with the money when they get rich? They will stick them up to their arses I guess.

There are fast-foods over here who prefer to give their surplus of food to dogs than to sell the food cheaper. Don't say me anything about profit: they pay 1 leu (~$0.28) for 1 kg of potato and they sell 100 gr of potato with close to $1. This makes for how much, 35x the initial costs? Mostly they justify their actions saying that they have to pay high prices for the rent. Guess who's at fault for the high prices for the rent and what's the connection between the exorbitant prices and the banks and the access of the world economy to our local resources (mostly foreigners who have different standards of living, higher salaries and higher costs as well, who come and buy properties over here at what western people would call ridiculous low prices).
Having foreigners and the banks offering good deals (higher prices) on rents over here transformed the guys who are owning places from businessmen to speculators. They do not rent at lower prices, even if this mean that 10 years from now they won't get any deal. They chose inactivity instead, they all hope for the lottery ticket that will bring them the owner of a bank or any other foreigner to their doorbell. In my town up to 80% of spaces for rent are empty. These guys do not realize that even if they will get the lottery ticket, by participating to the maintaining of higher prices on the renting market, they help the price on food and other general goods stay up, so the surplus they gain from a "good" deal dissolves into thin air the first moment they give their first penny on these general goods. But they act the brainless way they act because this is the so-called godly rule of the market you believe in and you pray to. Way to stick their heads into their own asses.

Are you following some economics school? You seem pretty confident on the letters of the books and too out of space when it is to judge on your own expertise and experience on the subject? If you are following some economics school don't bother to reply me anymore. I do not have time to deconstruct all the ideology that has been build in the thousands of these almost religious books over hundreds of years, in an organized and scientific manner. As a matter of fact, I am discussing here the weakness of this economical system, while you seem prepared to praise it all the way, with the idea to make me wonder how much you know, that I do not care.

"it has actually given me something to think about"
You chose to think about this because this gave you the opportunity to make the connection between different products their price and the connection between them, because this is the limit of your understanding as well as of your teachings right there.

When in fact the main problem I was talking about and that you chose to ignore is the big discrepancy between productivity, the level of living and the financial world. Because when you have the idea of unifying markets or establishing connections between markets from different parts of the world, you will get additional interfaces which could and will suck all the possible difference resulting from these interactions, with the risk of leveling down everything excepting this global economics interface, that has become a industry by itself, one very destructive. Because they do not teach you such things at school.

You see my being learned in economics as naive and inapplicable when discussing real economic events, I see your posts littered with contradictions and dubious causal relations from one sentence to the next.

Let's go our own ways, you keep believing in the primacy of "blue collar economics". It's because of simpletons (as far as understanding of economics is concerned, can't say much about any other subject) like you that demagogues can come to the political field time and again and enact preposterous policies with overwhelming support of "the common man".

You just fail to see the connection between politics and economics that for the last few decades pretty much infected all forms of activities, with their corresponding affected societies in our capitalist world, as well.

"sink banks and oil companies!"
They must be strictly regulated as far as speculation is concerned, unfortunately it is not possible under actual political circumstances (the guys in the gov won't start to regulate their own affairs out of thin air). I might be wrong on asking for regulation, when the biggest problem for certain represents the gov pumping further financial aid into financial institutions.

"It's because of simpletons (as far as understanding of economics is concerned, can't say much about any other subject) like you that demagogues can come to the political field time and again and enact preposterous policies with overwhelming support of "the common man""
I don't understand what you are saying here. I do not expect for the politicians to fix the economics, but to not intervene, when the direction of the economy seems to go wrong. By having the fed giving aids to the international banks, they are prolonging the disaster. Do not mistaken me for a communist. My family is one from the old aristocracy, not the kind of people who made money on enslaving the population, but the kind of people who knew that they had to work very hard to achieve anything. I am not against the accumulation of capital, but against improper use of finances and against economic development by force (so common in the communism era) , and when I say "forced" I refer to the usual procedure these days to just throw vast amount of money in everything, hoping that things then will just get fixed, and perceiving higher rates having the idea that by practicing constant raises you will put the population under constant stimulation to produce more . Before learning the value of money people must learn the values of work and quality products, and of thinking in perspective.

"I see your posts littered with contradictions and dubious causal relations from one sentence to the next"
Fact: I lost a good business back in the days, when from 2004 to 2005 the prices on rents and properties doubled, because the massive intervention from the banks -they started doing business on their own, instead functioning as they should -functioning primarily to help people to deposit their money, eventually doing moderate investments. Instead doing this, the banks created their own virtual economy, based on manipulation of finances. Guess what, this kind of activity at its core lacks any production. It is only a matter of time till it will go broke.
In 2006, ahead of the world economic crisis, when my partner tried to urge me to buy the property at high prices, I told him that we have to just wait, because the price will go down quite soon, this madness can't go on for long, I responded. And the price went down, unfortunate for the business, one year too late -someone else, scared that the prices might go up more, came in and accepted to pay the high price -just because another guy, the one who was my partner, busted his head to find one investor. An investor who did not care for the money at the time, believing that he will have his money back quick.
Time went by, and the business is going as it was going those days, not better, not worst. The only difference is that it has been payed a much higher price for the business to work and it will take a few decades more for the investor to have his money back. Banks went up, then banks went down (well, at some extend) and our poor local economics activity still struggle to recover from the shock.
I had to invest about $35,000 in December 2004-the spring of 2005, I had another things to do for two or three months, and in that small period of time the price went up to $70,000. Given the new situation I had to make the calculations: if I would have been buying with high price, it would have been taking me at least 15 years to recover the money. Another opportunity was to buy the place and sell it really quick. I did not count on selling the place after 5 or 10 years, as I knew that then the price will go down. Selling the place would still require a period of 5 to 10 years of activity to have my money back.
Intervention of the banks fucked up one of my business. The banks having the right to activate globally provoked instability, and fucked up one of my businesses. Fact.

And talking about UK, you should check a bit for history stories on how UK used time and again to prohibit the commerce with other countries on various specific products, in order to save their local production -which they succeeded on their attempts, btw. They love their isolationist policy for good reason.

Who cares, I'm far more interesting than than greece going bankrupt, its not news to anyone in the UK, only the deluded euros all trying to stop the rott setting in.

Smart people in the UK knew this would happen over a year ago, but unlike Germany and france we hadn't fucked ourselves by taking on the Euro so our media/society didn't feel the need to pretend that pumping money into Greece was the right idea when we really knew it was a sinking ship and this is just the start for Europe.

2: He hasn't won anything major (in quake 3/quakelive) where all the best players were in attendance since 2005, he only won INTEL EUROPE cos rapha was not there, he did not win the big one.

3: Because established players only want to evolve the game for themselves and not the mass market which is what id would like to attain. These are the same geniuses who strip the games via a config and say its all aim based, when they would not make half the shots they do if they did oopen up those text files which new players do not do, which in turn makes the learning curve seem even harder.

4: Cooller was younger then so had time to play all day, it doesn't really work out like that when you get to your early to mid 20's.
If it does, you'e probably a virtual bum and if you were gonna make it, you would have done so by now.

European countries haven't been able to get along since the beginning of history so I'm not sure who thought the Eurozone would be a good idea or work in the long term. The UK was really smart not to join.

i was just curious are any greeks in here? is the hate for germans real? and why are we the punching bag, its not that we rule over the EU. and we dont sit on our couches googling for cheap greek properties just to buy the country cause its fun :P just saying

Germans make me angry (no hate though, of course) for various reasons, but the main one is the same reason that my country men make angry too. That is that Greeks and Germans are imo the easiest manipulated citizens of the EU. Both nations eat the lies the media serve them with easy and believe everything they are been told. Greek election history proves that and the whole 20th century also proves how much dangerously sheepish German voters are. I got the impression that u can convince them of anything, even that a nation with so much History and contribution to the world (science, democracy etc), suddenly decided to turn into lazy wankers that disserve to die, while u r partying hardÖ w8 a minÖ many of u are already convinced of that (from what Iíve seen online at least). My ppl arenít any better though and we truly disserve what we get, mainly because of what we vote. They fuck us and we want more. I really hope the other nations with weak economies to resist and donít bend like us. We are mazohists mouse*. Therefore, u do us a favour!

Btw gl in Euro, u pld really well vs us!! Germany used to be my favourite national team. That is the first Euro that I wasnít rooting for u and the funny thing is, that u have one of the best teams ever in this one.

ps: the best voters in EU are the English imo. They hardly take any shit from their government.

alright was a bit vague but seems legit. thx for the honest answer. well the truth is the normal german citizen doesnt give a fuck about greece. its far away and not important to us in terms of business. we are not evil and trying to invade or buy greece like some of your fellas think

When I was in the army, I worked for the Headquarters of the Greek armyís Computer Science Research department. I knew all the ppl in the department and while I was there, made them software that they used and an Information Security Policy (I have an MSc in Information Security and Computer Crime). I could easily get a highly paid, no worries, job there after I finished the army, but I didnít. I always despised working for the government sector, which was idd the dream for most Greeks. I have never voted either of the 2 parties that rule the Greece the last 30 years. I wasnít even in Greece for many years. What I am saying is that I have 0% contribution to where Greece currently is and I still donít dare blame my country men the way u do.

You on the other hand, I bet would have jumped up and down with joy like a bunny, if u were given a place in the government sector by ur uncle. U had probably voted the parties, even in the last election that brought us to this shit. U might even havenít done ur army duties and u dare speak like that. No, let ME speak like this, if I want. You have no right, since u r probably one of the reasons we are like this.

U donít impress me with words. U want to impress me? Deny a job offer in the government sector that ur uncle arranged for u. Find the balls to vote another party, than the 2 that rule us the last 30 years. When we have elections, donít be lazy and go to vote. Take the plane to Greece if u live in London, because every vote counts. Then u impress me. With ur empty words, u donít!

Like I said in my 1st post, what has happened to Greece, we disserve it. Itís ppl like you that make me say that. Also, itís not black and white and there is some truth in both sides.

Young Greeks donít disserve to study in Uni for years and then be unable to find a job in their country. Our parents, you could blame them, but I feel really bad for the new generation. Guys with 2 degrees that canít find a job as waitresses should punch smartasses like u in the face.

It doesnít speak volumes about the majority of the Greek population. It could speak volumes about me. If u voted in the last elections and not the party that won, neither the one that brought us to this position, then I judged u wrongly.

You shouldnít say such bold words though. Who is blaming Germans for our position? Because we donít like the fact that we are ruled from a foreign country and canít do anything about it (other than voting under constant threatening)? Because they insult us with every single chance? Because they lend us money with interest, without letting us lend from anyone else and having the obligation to do whatever they say? Because they say we owe them big and display signs of hate toward us (have seen plenty online throughout last year), while they lend us with interest and make money in the process? I donít know in which universe a guy who lends money with interest is considered a good guy. Itís not this one though. And they even took it as far as projecting us like lazy assholes and they the saviours (giving us their hard worked money). Because they were pointing us what to vote in our elections? And like that wasnít enough, they were even pointing us to vote the same scams that brought us in this position. Blaming them for our position? No, I donít know where you got that? Not liking all the above, yes I donít and many others as well, itís true. I heard ppl blame the corruption, the politicians etc., but throw the whole blame to the Germans? Where you got that?

They provoke us and kept provoking us for a whole year and now suddenly, if we stopped liking them, it is because they are our escape goat and not because of other things, like the insults we have heard throughout the year. Of course, they are not to blame, I know that. It is the media that are brainwashing them as usual in order to justify their causes (our media do the same).

I judged you maybe harshly based mainly on that sentence of urs, but u judged harshly, while playing it cool and smartass, a whole nationÖ including many ppl (especially the young generation) who have no connection and no blame in all this.